🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19950903.1175360.FCDB@olympus.net>, dons@olympus.net (Don
Schmelling) wrote:

> Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
>I do not think of all
> end-users as dumb, just the ones that are.

It sure as heck sounds like you consider someone dumb if they don't agree
with your *opinion*.

> So do you feel good about making up a number like 99%???
> Maybee 99% in your shop, but not worldwide.

Roughly speaking, 80-90% of the machines out there run DOS and Windows. 
Another 8-15% of them are Macintoshes running System 6 or 7.  None of
these have PMT yet (with the possible exception of Win95, depending on
whether or not you believe the hype).  Everything else is in the noise. 
What number do you come up with?  Maybe 5% of the machines out there have
a PMT OS, and that is being very, very generous.

> I do know what indispensable means,

Just to make sure, it means, according to my Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary, not being set aside or neglected; absolutely
necessary; essential.

> and I did use it in the proper
> context.

Well, most of us do live without PMT.  If you have different numbers, post them.

>I have yet to meet anyone at work who could not use
> PMT, because people have more than one task to do at the same time.

That means they need *multitasking*.  Other than your asserting it, you
have not explained why people aboslutely cannot go on living without the
scheduler being preemptive.

> Most computing is done on mainframes.

In terms of what?  Surely not in terms of the number of people who use
computers on a daily basis.  Cite some sources showing this is true.

> I have yet to meet anyone
> who could not use PMT.

That is a far weaker assertion than PMT being absolutely indispensable. 
Be self-consistent, please.

> I guess you have no need for things like virus
> checkers, system clocks, and multiple apps?

I have all those on my Mac.  Amazing, isn't it?

> I would expect someone with an email address that ends in .edu to
> be more sensible than this.

Ah, back to the "if I don't agree with your opinion, I must be dumb"
argument.  I'd rather be, by your definition, dumb than be as smart as
you.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799